The problem is that we are allowing schizophrenics to run around loose. Our society has refused to address the problem of the mentally ill not being effectively controlled since the ACLU pushed for deinstitutionalization in the ’60′s.

Just to speed things up here: one group should go ahead and blame the prevalence of guns; another group can complain that the entertainment industry has glamorized violence and thus desensitized us to it; another group can wonder why so many disturbed people are allowed to freely wander throughout society; and another group can complain that the lousy economy and the holiday season have driven people to the depths of despair. Can that forestall rounds and rounds of endless blog and Facebook arguments?

IMO this legal purchase should have been impossible. His diagnosis should have barred him from legal purchase of firearms.

Mentally ill people, people with autism and personality disorders, people who do not relate normally to others and their environment or have uncontrollable impulses because of mental defect, should be barred from weapons purchase or ownership unless they can establish or re-establish stability and mental health. Mandatory reporting with diagnosis, due process to remove restriction.

There isn’t a “gun control” problem in this country – there’s a NUT CONTROL problem. I’m sorry if “nut” is an offensive way to refer to an afflicted person. However, it’s time to make emerging or known mental illness of the sort described above, instantly (mandatory reporting) a bar to legal purchase of weapons, with due process to restore the right.

14.For the record, I don’t want to ban handguns. I just think it’s worth having the discussion about many gun-murders a year the Second Amendment is worth.

Comment by Leviticus (17b7a5) — 12/14/2012 @ 3:09 pm

Harry Belafonte reminded us just yesterday why the nation couldn’t last without a 2nd Amendment.

States can secede and draft their own constitutions with gun laws to their liking. So maybe the question should be: “How many gun murders is it worth to remain in the union that has a 2nd Amendment?”. That also assumes the silly idea that you’ll stop having gun crime after you get rid of the 2nd amendment.

Federal law prohibits the sale of handguns to persons under 21 by licensed dealers. It does not restrict sales of handguns between private individuals of the same state. Connecticut state law bans possession of handguns by those under 21, requires a permit to purchase and bans “assault weapons” not already possessed as of 1993 from a list of models and features mirroring the now expired Federal “Assault Weapons” ban.

In other words, Connecticut already has all the “reasonable” gun control measures advocated by gun control advocates.

I am trying not to conjecture too much. There is just still so much unverified and conflicting info out there that it’s probably not very productive. Some reports have the father dead off-site today too, and there’s already been confusion about whether it was the older son or the younger son who was the shooter and who is dead.

All I know is this: Many of those poor parents and grandparents have Christmas presents bought, wrapped, tagged, and hidden away for Christmas morning ready to bring joy for their beautiful (now gone forever) children. It’s too heartbreaking to even think about.

Absolutely. Because banning cocaine has made it almost impossible to get. Guns will be just as difficult to obtain.

Even more difficult…

/sarc off

I mean after all, coca leaves don’t grow outside of hothouses in North America. Lots of machine tools in the USA, though. They could make impressively functional guns in 1880 with the tools they had then. How much work is it going to be with a computer-operated milling machine?

BTW, offhand I can think of at least two ways to cause MORE death and horror than guns, both readily available to any remotely competent, intelligent American. I can think of one more way which won’t kill but will maim in truly horrific ways, particularly when you think of children as the targets.

Banning guns would not make the problem go away. There are well over 200 million guns in the U.S. right now. Does anyone really think that people would turn in all their guns? Maybe the proverbial little old lady in Pasadena would, and other naive, honest people. The criminals and otherwise law-abiding smart people would not.

(Why wouldn’t smart people do it? Because they know they would then be defenseless against the bad guys. Remember, when seconds count, the police are only minutes away.)

It would take a fascist state on steroids, including storm troopers going house to house, to seriously make a dent in the number of guns, and even then people would find a way to hide their guns.

If we could start this country all over again, and ban guns from the get-go, it might work, but the cat’s already out of the bag.

There isn’t a “gun control” problem in this country – there’s a NUT CONTROL problem. I’m sorry if “nut” is an offensive way to refer to an afflicted person. However, it’s time to make emerging or known mental illness of the sort described above, instantly (mandatory reporting) a bar to legal purchase of weapons, with due process to restore the right.

Leviticus,
When England banned guns, home invasions and rapes skyrocketed. Making guns illegal just means that law-abiding citizens won’t be able to defend themselves from criminals. In china today, a man slashed over 20 people with a knife. The worst mass school murder in American history took place on May 18,1927 in Bath Township, Mich., when a former school board member set off three bombs that killed 45 people.

People kill, with or without guns.

Now that we’ve had the discussion, should we ban mass schooling? It’d be a lot harder for these f**kers to kill lots of people if we’d stop packing them all into one convenient slaughterhouse.

I am good I’m in the heartland and i’m a go to Hannibal next… Not sure what to expect but in my imagination the town very likely offers a shimmering glimpse into the mysterium tremendum of everything what makes America wonderful

That’s true. Japan has a very low homicide rate, but you’re forgetting a few things. Mexico has about the same laws as Japan (a virtual ban on private ownership of firearms) and the homicide rate in Mexico is about four times HIGHER than the homicide rate in the United States.

You’re also forgetting that the same Japanese state that outlawed the private ownership of firearms and other weapons then used that monopoly on weaponry to oppress the Japanese population for centuries and also to murder millions of unarmed people who fell under the power of the Japanese Empire.

Just during WWII the same totalitarian Japanese state that gave you the comprehensive outlawing of private ownership of weapons, murdered around 6,000,000 people (by one estimate).

That’s the price you pay for having a totalitarian government (which, Japan still has, btw, they just have a veneer of democracy over the same old totalitarian police state they’ve always had…IOW, Japan is a disaster waiting to happen).

You’re also forgetting that institution of heavy gun control in both the UK (which has a virtual complete ban on ownership of weaponry) and the US has done absolutely NOTHING to lower homicide rates. On the contrary, the more gun control laws thay’ve passed, the higher the homicide rates have gone, in both countries.

In 1900 the homicide rate in the United States was 1.2 per 100,000 population, in 2011 it was 4.2 per 100,000, and that’s after the passage of thousands and thousands of gun control laws.

Well, certainly those people who’ve become more and more brazen and shameless.

While most liberals — clueless as ever — worry about the hardware (ie, weaponry, including handguns), people with common sense (conservatives included) worry about what really counts. Namely, the “software.” Or the increasingly desensitized, do-your-own-thang culture we live in.

Human beings don’t live in a vacuum, and when crude, crass and violent forms of dysfunction are all around us, it’s naive to think that the average person — much less a borderline psycho — won’t be affected by all that dysfunction.

Another thing: The idiocy of liberalism (ie, political correctness run amok) is at the heart of the bloody rampage of Nidal Hasan at Fort Hood a few years ago. IOW, it’s even more absurd to fuss about the “hardware” of society when the “software” of our country (which involves decades of the corrupting nature of feel-good liberalism) is what is allowing ruthless, deadly behavior to percolate and then erupt.

Gun-related homicides in Japan (2008): 11
Gun-related homicides in the US (2008): 12,000

Uh, Japan also has a culture that, so far, still is more traditional and honor-bound than what has become the increasingly do-your-own-thang, feel-good, I’m-okay-you’re-okay, compassion-is-a-religion culture of America.

Japan also is no-nonsense when it comes to the type of issues that we in America are so touchy-feely about. For example, the controversy of decades of huge amounts of illegal immigration, which we blow kisses to. Or a willingness to embrace modern figureheads like the guy who said “if I had a son, he’d look like Trayvon Martin.”

Uh, Japan also has a culture that, so far, still is more traditional and honor-bound than what has become the increasingly do-your-own-thang, feel-good, I’m-okay-you’re-okay, compassion-is-a-religion culture of America.

Yep, which illustrates the tendency of humans to go off the deep end, to allow extremist situations, emotions and trends (including leaders, be they political, spiritual, etc) to choke the common sense and decency out of a society.

Here in the US, in the 21st century, it’s the extremism of feel-good liberalism that is the slippery slope we’re skidding and sliding on.

We are not f***** Japan and we are not f***** Mexico and we are not f***** France and we are not F**** England and we are not a scaredy a** f** haven.

Sure, but we are no longer the America that you and I recognize. Obama wants us to be like Japan, France, England. . . . Spain, Greece, Portugal. . . . Yeah, that won’t come at a cost — but at least it won’t immediately affect his voters, so he can still be the Greatest President of All-Time.

observe the Lefty dolt on display–Guns at home – far more likely to be used stupidly than for defense.
States with the strictest gun laws have least firearm fatalities.
Comment by Dad (d01ca2) — 12/14/2012 @ 7:01 pm

Yeah, Chicago’s total ban on guns has really eliminated gun crime there, as in DC….

Leviticus, would it make you feel any better if this person had chained the doors closed, poured gasoline all over the place and then lit a match? Would it make you feel any better if he had run them down with his mother’s car? In reaction to their deaths, would you now be typing “at least he didn’t shoot them”?

“A lot of these mass shootings happen in “gun free zones.” Research it.”

Patterico – But aren’t people advocating more gun control in reaction to these mass shootings, although not specific on what specific measures they are advocating, barking up the wrong tree if mentally deranged people bent on a killing spree have already shown us plenty of evidence they pay no attention to existing gun control laws or the criminal code? Why would adding more restrictions prove any kind of deterrent to these wackadoodles?

Perhaps we need to have each school hire a retired cops to sit around, armed, just in case. They can teach PE or supervise recess to cut the costs a bit. And if someone brings a gun to school, they can “control” it.

BTW, gun laws in Connecticut require handgun buys to have a state permit and to have passed a background check. Long guns have fewer rules, but the only long gun here was found in the killer’s mom’s trunk. Not even clear he knew it was there.

Again, crazy son with guns lying around. What could go wrong? You really cannot police stupidity — there would never be enough cops.

It turns out that gun ownership, both by household and by individual, has declined from 30% to 20%, and 50% to 35%, respectively between 1980 and 2010. So why all the violence? What part does the culture play in it? Instead of banning guns, maybe we should ban movies and TV shows that glorify gun use.

Near as I can tell, more people are murdered in a season of Hawaii Five-0 than are killed in all of the real Hawaii (17 in 2011).

There are people who have done serious studies looking at crime stats in the US as correlated with gun ownership, etc.

But rarely do people bother talking about that, primarily because a good analysis and not just cherry-picking shows gun ownership in the US decreases crime.

When the law is on your side, pound the law; when the facts are on your side, pound the facts; when nothing is on your side but you want to argue anyway, pound the table, jump up and down and pound the floor, and scream repeatedly.

If you think people are not concerned about this tragedy feel free to jump in a lake yourself.

If you want to have a serious discussion about the potential consequences of stricter control of guns or encouragment of more sane people to carry them, then we can have that, but as I said above, reasoned debate does not appear to be in season these days.

I would be very wary of taking Japanese crime statistics at face value. I know, for instance, that in other areas the Japanese government is very good at defining terms so as to make the government look good.

Who is employed? In the US you have to work at least 8 hours a week to be considered a part time worker. In Japan it’s one hour. If you report you babysat for your sister, congratulations. You no longer count as unemployed for statistical purposes. Also if you’re over 50. Not even if you report you desperately need a job and are actively looking for work. That would put you amongst the ranks of the unemployed here but not Japan. Because everyone knows nobody hires 50 year old guys, the government considers your situation hopeless. Since you’re not employable you don’t count. In Japan to be considered unemployed you must not only actively look for work but have a snowflake’s chance in hell of finding it.

As far as crime statistics go, if a parent kills his or her children (and even their spouse) before killing themselves it’s a “family suicide.” It’s not a murder/suicide as it would be here. Such creativity does wonder for making your murder stats look good.

When I was recalled after 9/11 I was sent to Japan and assigned to force protection. I worked fairly closely with the local police. Japan does have a handgun problem, but you’d never know it from the lousy reporting. Fishermen rendezvous with Chinese or Russian boats and buy them, then smuggle them back into the country.

It used to be that the Yakuza would try to bribe US sailors to bring back guns and ammo from the Philippines. In the old days a single round went for $100. No more. Now everyone can get whatever they need from China or Russia. And I do mean everyone. The Japanese cops longed for the old days when only the Yakuza had guns. And they didn’t go around promiscuously shooting just anyone. They left citizens out of it, and for the most part the cops let them go about their business as long as the Yakuza kept that business limited to themselves. Now anyone in Japan who wants a gun can get one. Hell, I could have found an illegal gun if I wanted.

And when your average run-of-the-mill non-yakuza criminal commits a crime with a gun, the cops pointed out, he’ll use it. He’s convinced that was what he has to do if he has a gun. I recall a supermarket robbery in Machida, a Tokyo suburb not too far from a friend’s apartment where I often stayed. The employees gave the robber everything he wanted. Everything they had. He could have just left. Instead he just shot the three to death before leaving.

Somehow I doubt that total figure of 11 gun homocides in 2008. You can’t really compare stats from one country to another because different countries define terms differently. When it comes to crime figures, the US and Japan really are speaking different languages.

So, his mom was a teacher at the school; but, since he had already killed her at home, this means she wasn’t at the school when he arrived. Why did they let him inside? Is the person that allowed him past the security door among the victims? If not, s/he has some explaining to do.

Today I am upset that the parents of the babies in the school were not allowed in immediately to hold their children one more time.

They knew who the killer was. I just don’t see the reason why “processing” the scene in a technical manner was more important than letting those parents in.
Every instinct in a parents’ life is about protecting your small children. Knowing they had died frightened would be haunting. Knowing they had to lay in the school without you would be too much.

I can’t stand it that this was done to them. It seems cruel and pointless.

“If you want to have a serious discussion about the potential consequences of stricter control of guns or encouragment of more sane people to carry them, then we can have that.”

- MD in Philly

Interesting framing you’ve got there. I want to have a serious conversation about gun deaths, whether or not a sharp reduction of the number of guns in circulation would reduce them, and (if so) whether or not the lives saved by that sharp reduction would be worth the loss in personal freedom it required.

L.
So to have that conversation in the U.S. would that need to be a worldwide sharp reduction or a national reduction or a state reduction or a county reduction or a city reduction? Don’t knee jerk. Think this through, OK? What kind of a world do you want to live in and leave to your progeny? Are you comfortable in a world where only criminals would have illegal/contraband guns along with government LE, despots, terrorists and armies (perhaps some/many of them rogue)?

MayBee, it would have been the same if this had been a school bus that crashed through a guard-rail and went over a cliff.
The Forensics people don’t want anyone “contaminating” their crime-scene, making it more difficult than it already is to sort out what the evidence tells them.
It is unfortunate, but it is what it is.

Leviticus, I haven’t bothered following the details because I’m already convinced on the overall issue, for me the issue would be in the details.

I think the expert is a sociologist from Yale, I am sure someone here knows who I am talking about.

Meanwhile, do you have any idea how many parents were cruel to their children today and are pushing them towards delinquency?
Yes, it was and is a terrible thing. There are lots of terrible things in this world, and while “common sense” can be helpful in many instances, knee-jerk reactions of wanting to issue some mandate on all of society rarely end up doing more good than harm.

Interesting framing you’ve got there. I want to have a serious conversation about gun deaths, whether or not a sharp reduction of the number of guns in circulation would reduce them, and (if so) whether or not the lives saved by that sharp reduction would be worth the loss in personal freedom it required.

Comment by Leviticus (17b7a5) — 12/15/2012 @ 7:30 am

But you want to have that discussion by cherry-picking statistics and ignoring statistics that are inconvenient. That’s not a “discussion”.

Leviticus, why have that “conversation” until you brush up on the countries that did have that “conversation.” And I’m using the word “conversation” the same way Obama uses the word “ask.” As in “we’re also going to have to ask the wealthiest Americans to pay higher tax rates.” By which he means “coerce.” So “conversation” means “you shut up while I talk.”

Disarming victim groups does nothing to reduce guns in circulation. And while it may satisfy nanny staters from South Africa to England to Argentina and beyond that it’s the hallmark of an advanced civilization when citizens, if they have to die, at least die unarmed it doesn’t please the victims much.

Let’s not go to another country. In the aftermath of Sandy New Yorkers in areas like Far Rockaway were left cowering in their apartments as gangs roamed the street looting and committing other violent crimes.

People were afraid to leave their homes unattended because then they’d have been looted, but they had no way to defend them. And the police, who Head NYC Nanny Bloomberg is convinced should have a monopoly on guns in his city, were nowhere to be seen.

I take it you want to bring the benefits of this system to the rest of the country?

156. Among the dishonesties of “Dad” is that his link for the ridiculous claim of fewest firearm fatalities in struct gun law states was a chart that included deaths from legitimate self-defense shootings.

That’s the kind of lies I have come to expect from gun control advocates.

Comment by SPQR (768505) — 12/15/2012 @ 9:45 am

Gun banning groups like “The Children’s Defense Fund” pad the stats to advance the lie that guns are this enormous public health menace to children by padding the stats to include young adults under their definition of children. Also, they include offenders gunned down by police in the course of committing violent crimes as “victims” of this “epidemic.”

Another mode of dishonesty is to confine “effective defensive use” of firearms to actual shootings. These “public health” researchers ignore incidents when the mere display of a firearm led to the criminal fleeing or being captured. Only if it’s discharged do they count it.

This sort of thing isn’t research; it’s a fraud. The whole point of treating guns like a disease is to advance an agenda camouflaged as scientific research.

It is nothing of the sort. Public health studies of gun use is to scientific research what astrology is to astrophysics.

A 20 year-old had a couple of handguns (illegal). And, depending on the press report, had an assault weapon (illegal), automatic rifle (illegal), or machine gun (illegal). Shot his mom in the face (illegal). Stole his mom’s vehicle (illegal). Transported the gun in the vehicle (illegal) within 1,000 feet of a school (illegal). Carried it onto school property (illegal). Broke and entered (illegal). Carried a gun in a school (illegal). Discharged a firearm (illegal). Shot at people (illegal). Killed some people (illegal). Killed himself (not sure if illegal).

And I’m sure broke other laws I’m not aware of. But, you know, one more gun law ought to do it. Right?

Also, the semi-automatic 5.56 or machine gun or automatic rifle or assault weapons (depending on the source) was much vilified as news of the shooting broke. But that weapon remained in the car.

“Assault weapon” is an utterly meaningless, made up term that is based upon silly, cosmetic features. “Assault rifle” describes a military issue rifle, firing an intermediate power cartridge capable of full automatic or multiple bursts and such rifles are not available to the general public in the US except for very limited and very expensive examples that take a great deal of paperwork to obtain under the NFA of 1934.

SPQR, I understand what Sayuncle was doing. But it may not have been obvious to people who aren’t in the know. So I thought I’d make his ridicule of the notion the shooter had a machine gun more plainly laughable.

The reason the gun-grabbers make up terms like “assault weapon” is to perpetrate a fraud. And it works because most people aren’t familiar with the characteristics of the firearms in question.

The US was the first military to adopt a semi-auto rifle for general issue and that wasn’t until 1936.

On the other hand, semi-auto rifles and shotguns had been used by sportsmen for decades before they were adopted by militaries. I inherited two Browning Auto-5 shotguns, a model that had been in production since 1905 (hence the name). Remington produced its Model 8 semi-auto rifle starting in 1906. You have long been able to get extended box magazines for them. I find them decidedly AK-looking when you attach such a mag to one.

All an “assault weapon” is is a rifle or shotgun that works no differently than rifles or shotguns that have been in the hands of the general public since the turn of the last century. But it looks like the scary guns the military and cops use.

Of course, the fact that the gun grabbers lie and say they’re actually machine guns is part of the rank dishonesty. Retired Gen. Weaselly Clark is undoubtedly the worst. He’ll go on TV and say, “If you want to play with machine guns you need to join the army.” He’s not too stupid to know the difference. He’s just is incapable of telling the truth.

Long a habit of his, as I had friends who served under the lying, self-serving arrogant perfumed prince in the Balkans.

I thought the WaPo captured the concept perfectly. I was working for a defense contractor, back in DC to train client agency personnel on a new software suite. While they took a written exam I browsed the paper. There was an article comparing the pros and cons of living in Virginia vs. Maryland.

Under the heading of crime, the WaPo noted Virginia had the lower crime rate. But the WaPo helpfully pointed out that many people (no doubt they understand the mindset of the typical WaPo reader) would feel safer in Maryland because concealed carry was illegal and thus you could dine out secure in the knowledge that no one nearby was carrying a concealed weapon.

Liberal logic at its finest. After acknowledging Maryland to be the more dangerous of the two states in terms of crime the WaPo offers the fictional notion that a law preventing someone from going through a background check and training in order to legally carry a concealed weapon means that nobody in that diner has a concealed weapon.

And thus by the same token there are no handguns in Britain since they were banned back in ’97.

If you’re a WaPo reporter you can now “feel” safer when you go out to dine in Lancashire than you would have in 1996.

When I’ve got the money – which is not right now, hahaha… and I have no time to camp right now either, which is what I really want the thing for anyway.

Comment by Leviticus (17b7a5) — 12/14/2012 @ 10:07 pm

I could gift you my .380 (I can’t shoot it anymore) but your FFL would need to contact my FFL, you pay the FFL fees and shipping costs. Or you can come to Illinois, establish residence, and get a FOID.

Or you can park on the shoulder of a highway underpass, where black teenagers are selling crack, and say “I’m not looking for crack, I want a gun”.

I think it would be Mexican kids in your part of the country?

Or you just live in the neighborhood, trusted not to be a snitch, and tell somebody you trust not to be a snitch that you want a gun.

What’s curious about liberals is that they somehow haven’t realized we have this “conversation” all the freakin’ time. Or rather, I guess they can’t acknowledge that fact as the gun control side of the “conversation” always fails to convince. I think most people realize, as I do, that if these mass shootings have increased it’s because something has changed.

And it isn’t the widespread availability of guns because they used to be more freely available than now. It isn’t as if semi-auto rifles, shotguns, or handguns are new technology; 1896 Broomhandle Mauser, anyone? It isn’t as if even machine guns are more widely available now than ever. Up until 1934 you could walk into a hardware store and buy a Tommy gun. They used to market them to people living on the border as violence from Mexican revolutions kept spilling over.

(And I know people living on the border now still wish they were available.)

What’s changed is the fact that due to liberal policies society has been coarsened and people are less able to self-govern.

Plus people charged with upholding the law refuse to fulfill their responsibilities and see to it that those mentally unfit to possess firearms are flagged for that purpose.

Yup. I read all the excuses for not “stigmatizing” the mentally ill. It’s just BS. It’s just an excuse for not upholding the law and, frankly I am convinced the more I hear the excuses it’s a deliberate policy to leave ticking time bombs in the community in order to coerce people who aren’t the problem to give up their rights.

As if coarsening society isn’t a deliberate policy.

The whenever those time bombs go off out come the liberals saying it’s finally time to have a “serious conversation” about gun control.

As if we hadn’t had that conversation before. Or it wasn’t serious. Or the only reason the rest of us don’t kill our own parents and wipe out a classroom full of 6 and 7 year olds is because liberals haven’t made it sufficiently illegal.

As opposed to the obvious; the people who do these things are unhinged and the liberals refuse to do anything about them when given the chance.

Sorry, Leviticus. No dice. We’re not going to continue to sit still for the “conversation” after “conversation” until you and your ilk gets its way and it’s just a one-way lecture. The rest of us aren’t going to give up rights because the liberals in charge continue to be derelict in their duties in order to compel us to do exactly that. Especially when even if you guys get your way all you’re getting for a mass violation of rights is a fiction. An illusion that you’ve done something about the number of guns circulating in society.

Yes, we’re ready for an argument, try and make one,
excerpting the Columbine original plan to blow up the school, just like the Bath Schoolhouse decision, of 1927, the cutting of school resources officers by the dOJ, the prevention of civil institutionalization reform in Connecticut,

Yes, we’re ready for an argument, try and make one,
excerpting the Columbine original plan to blow up the school, just like the Bath Schoolhouse decision, of 1927, the cutting of school resources officers by the dOJ, the prevention of civil institutionalization reform in Connecticut,

Concerning institutionalization, why not establish random mental health checks, and either internment or euthanasia of those who fail?

Very early the name of the shooter was given as Ryan Lanza. Some people said right away this had to be Adam (like Beth Israel on Twitter. Beth Israel is the name of a person who lived nearby, 6 houses away, and whose daughter went to school with Adam Lanza, but lost contact with the family the last 2 or 3 years)

The reason his name was given as Ryan Lanza is that he had on his person an ID of his 24-year old brother Ryan.

It was said he killed his father. He did not.

They said children between the ages of 5 and 10 were killed. This even got into President Obama’s statement. Actually they were all between 6 or 7 – in the first grade. Five to ten might be the approximate ages of all children who attended that school. It goes from kindergarten through the 4th grade. But he only went into one or two first grade classes.

It was said his mother was a kindergarten teacher in that school. Then, that she used to be a kindergarten teacher in that school. And maybe quit to take care of him. This had given me ideas that maybe he went there for a reason connected with that.

Then, that she actually never had worked in that school. Which sounded like she had no connection with that school whatsoever!

But what’s his connection to the school, then?

Now it is maybe he attended that school once (but it turns out they moved from New Hampshire when he was eight years old,so if he went there, it wasn’t in the first grade anyway and probably not that classroom.)

Or maybe his mother worked – or volunteered? – there as an aide. This is still not clear to me.

It was said he used the two guns he had, and he didn’t use the rifle which was found in the car.

So I thought well, maybe that’s one thing that worked – he had to be buzzed in – this was something new – so he couldn’t take the rifle. And I thought also maybe a rifle is slower.

Then it came out in fact no, he used the Bushmaster rifle and he didn’t use the pistols.

There was a weapon found (in the trunk) of the car – that was a 4th weapon.

On the Internet they found some information they were putting on a new protocol – after 9:30 AM you needed to be buzzed in. (there was a camera and a video feed)

It was said he was buzzed in because he used his brother’s ID. This made no sense, because there wouldn’t be a list of all people who could come in. The ID couldn’t play a part.

It was said he was let in because he was recognized by the principal. Actually the principal was in her office. They were having a staff meeting.

Actually he was not buzzed in at all. He used the rifle to break the glass and walk in.

It was said that victims were shot at close range. Actually, all but two were shot from a distance. They all had (those who died) between 3 and 11 bullets in them.

It was said he visited the day before and fought with some people at the school. There were no details for that that I heard. Now it turns out that’s not so, although some people are thinking maybe he visited the school and didn’t fight, or it didn’t rise to the level of an “altercation.”

I think the principal was said to be 27 years old. Actually, she was 47. One teacher killed was 27.

They heard gunshots, and a bunch of kids scream, and then just more gunshots. The principal and school psychologist went outside to see what was going on. She apparently attempted to stop him and got killed.

Meanwhile, another teacher pressed her body against the door to keep it closed. Unlike other rooms, there was no lock on the door. She was shot through the door in her arm and her leg, but he left to go look for easier targets.

Gun-related homicides in Japan (2008): 11
Gun-related homicides in the US (2008): 12,000

What’s so special about “gun-related”? Dead is dead. And when you compare total homicides, add suicides (to allow for the difference in reporting), and adjust for demographics, suddenly your difference disappears.

. I just think it’s worth having the discussion about many gun-murders a year the Second Amendment is worth.

Right after we discuss how many deaths the first amendment is worth. How many soldiers’ lives could have been saved if the news media had been prevented from running the Abu Ghraib photos, if Newsweek had been prevented from running that fake photo of the koran in the toilet, how many lives could have been saved if the fake photo of Mohammed al-Dura could have been suppressed, or the Mohammed cartoons, or the SWIFT story, or so many others. And how many copycat mass-shootings could be prevented if the press were banned from reporting them? Tell me how many lives the first amendment is worth, and then we can discuss the second. And then go on to how many lives the fourth, fifth, and sixth are worth, taking into account people killed by murderers who were walking the streets only because of those amendments.

How many soldiers’ lives could have been saved if the news media had been prevented from running the Abu Ghraib photos, if Newsweek had been prevented from running that fake photo of the koran in the toilet, how many lives could have been saved if the fake photo of Mohammed al-Dura could have been suppressed, or the Mohammed cartoons,

These didn’t cause any more deaths than the Innocence of Muslims YouTube video caused the Cairo and Benghazi and other attacks, but it’s because of all these previous incidents that it sounded kind of believable to some people.

It may not happen any more. I think that’s played out and too many people see through it.

Maybe the Mohammed al Dura picture did affect a few people, but only because it was tied into so much more.

Perhaps we need to have each school hire a retired cops to sit around, armed, just in case. They can teach PE or supervise recess to cut the costs a bit.

Why? Just let the teachers and other staff who are already being paid bring the arms they already have. If that’s not enough, then offer a small pay bump to those who qualify for CCW and agree to come to work armed.

How many soldiers’ lives could have been saved if the news media had been prevented from running the Abu Ghraib photos, if Newsweek had been prevented from running that fake photo of the koran in the toilet, how many lives could have been saved if the fake photo of Mohammed al-Dura could have been suppressed, or the Mohammed cartoons,

These didn’t cause any more deaths than the Innocence of Muslims YouTube video caused the Cairo and Benghazi and other attacks, but it’s because of all these previous incidents that it sounded kind of believable to some people.

What are you talking about? The deaths caused by these things are very very real. Not like this fake Cairo/Benghazi thing.

I beloved as much as you’ll receive carried out right here. The caricature is tasteful, your authored material stylish. nevertheless, you command get bought an shakiness over that you want be handing over the following. sick unquestionably come more beforehand again since precisely the same nearly a lot incessantly inside case you protect this increase.